If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

There's no way that a sports league like the NBA or NFL would sell national broadcasting rights without maintaining some (and likely substantial) input on the decisions of what games will be shown. I'm pretty sure that in the NFL, Goodell and one of his henchmen set the prime time schedule themselves (obviously both CBS and NBC would want a game like Manning returning to Indy, so someone at the league has to make the final call). In the NBA, there has to be someone directly close to the commissioner (if not the commissioner himself at times) who works with ABC/ESPN/TNT to schedule the games. Nationally televised games have a domino effect on the league's popularity, so there's no way that the league would just stand by and let the networks schedule everything themselves.

ABC can't schedule the Thunder and Knicks to play on Christmas. The league makes the schedule. It's a give and take type of thing.

I take both of your points (and would love to see the article you referred to Since86), but I would caveat with: it depends on what the NBA prioritizes. If the NBA's strategy is to maximize immediate profits, then they lose leverage with the networks. If ABC comes and says, we'll give you $x dollars above any counteroffer from the other networks if you guarantee us y ratings, then who actually has the leverage? This pushes towards the kinds of schedules you see this year, which are guaranteed to draw certain large, local audiences.

OTOH, if the NBA had a long term "grow awareness" strategy, then networks would lose leverage, because extra money wouldn't/shouldn't influence them. The schedules over the last couple of years seem to suggest the former is actually happening.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Despite our improvements in the bench relative to last year, the first six minutes of the second and fourth quarters (and this comment may tickle Peck) make me act like a Star Trek captain and yell "Red alert, brace for impact!"....and then "Damage report?" In the second quarter, thanks to Scola, the evasive maneuvers worked. In the 4th though, we were assimilated.

Aldridge, MoWill and Lillard was able cause asevere hull breach in the ship that Scotty couldn't even fix.

Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

The Knicks did start last season pretty well 18-5. They did win 5 more games last season than the pacers. They do have a true recognizeable star on their team. Pacers did not especially when the schedule came out in late July.

So the Pacers beating them 4-2 is a massacre?? (no one ever suggested the Bulls massacred the Pacers when they best us 4-1 in 2011)

They don't pick the teams willy nilly, through their research they believed the Knicks were a better ratings draw than the pacers. (Knicks are awful now, so things have changed)

Also keep in mind the TV broadcasters pick the teams they want. Unless it is in their contract with the NBA they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz. If the NBA tells them to show the Utah Jazz, they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz unless they are contractually obligated to do so.

I suppose I find it understandable that the Knicks were scheduled 6 times and the pacers none.

Nobody is saying the Pacers should have an equal amount of games on ABC. People are saying they find it at the very least quite odd that the team that took out the Knicks in 6 games and took the two-time NBA Champions to the maximum 7 games couldn't get ONE game on ABC, while the Knicks got 6 of what is it a total of 25 games? That's what is so pathetic about it.

It's "logical" the big market teams get more or much more games, but it's not normal (IMHO) that they pretty a huge number of games, while other very good teams get... none. I think that's the issue.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Nobody is saying the Pacers should have an equal amount of games on ABC. People are saying they find it at the very least quite odd that the team that took out the Knicks in 6 games and took the two-time NBA Champions to the maximum 7 games couldn't get ONE game on ABC, while the Knicks got 6 of what is it a total of 25 games? That's what is so pathetic about it.

It's "logical" the big market teams get more or much more games, but it's not normal (IMHO) that they pretty a huge number of games, while other very good teams get... none. I think that's the issue.

Exactly.

I understand that the New York TV market and MSG appeal make the Knicks more valuable to the league than the Pacers. I get it. Thus, I wouldn't be fussing if the Knicks had 5 ABC games to something like 3 for the Pacers. But the 6 to 0 ratio after we bulldozed the Knicks and took the Heat to Game 7 of the ECF's is a complete and utter joke. If going to Game 7 of the ECF's isn't enough to get one ABC game, then what in the hell is? This league has a blatant flagrant bias towards large market teams and "stars". 3 of the 4 Conference Finalists have just one combined ABC game: Pacers have 0, Grizz have 0, and Spurs have 1. I guess that the Spurs coming within a hair of the championship is only worth one ABC game for the following season. The Pacers, Grizz, and Spurs all play in small markets and prior to this season, none had a big time "star". Now PG has certainly evolved into a true superstar this season, but he wasn't yet considered a big time star before the season started.

Like I said, most of the ABC games are some combination of NY-LAL-CHI-MIA-OKC. It's all so boring and predictable. I have no problem with those teams getting games, but Christ, give teams like the Pacers and Grizz a chance on ABC. This league doesn't reward team quality.

It's just one of many reasons that the NFL runs circles around the NBA. The Colts had a good season in 2012, so the NFL gave them multiple prime time games in 2013 (two SNF games and a MNF game). If you're good, the NFL rewards you the following season with prime time exposure. It doesn't matter what market you play in.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

If going to Game 7 of the ECF's isn't enough to get one ABC game, then what in the hell is? This league has a blatant flagrant bias towards large market teams and "stars". 3 of the 4 Conference Finalists have just one combined ABC game: Pacers have 0, Grizz have 0, and Spurs have 1. I guess that the Spurs coming within a hair of the championship is only worth one ABC game for the following season. The Pacers, Grizz, and Spurs all play in small markets and prior to this season, none had a big time "star". Now PG has certainly evolved into a true superstar this season, but he wasn't yet considered a big time star before the season started.

I guess it goes back to the question who do you blame? The viewing public or the NBA/TV partners who don't put on the lesser known teams. (I don't think market size matters very much. If Lebron played in Muncie Indiana the Muncie Widcats would be on the maximum number of times)

No the league doesn't reward team quality they reward TV ratings. Certain teams get better ratings than others even if they are comparably good. And yes I know Bills argument that if the pacers are never on TV then they wil never be known and will not get good ratings and therefore won't be on TV. I get that. But look at the Thunder. Very small market team (that right now is one of the best rating draws in the NBA) How did they become a top TV draw? Very slowly. Become good is the first step, get or build recognizable star players and slowly build.

The veiwing public has to take some blame also. The average casual NBA viewer would rather watch the Clippers style of ball than the Pacers, Grizzlies, Spurs style. A lot of fans don't want to see David West or Duncan's fundamental style and would rather watch the Clippers' Griffin flying around dunking the ball.

Pacers popularity is building with their great start and the buzz that is creating along with Paul George. But it takes time to build that and once built we'll be complaining about too many national TV games involving the Pacers. Pacers are a likeable team that will become a pretty good ratings draw, but it takes time.

And no the NBA is not the NFL. Cannot compare the two. The NBA is more like MLB, but even that is hard to compare.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Because who ever they brought in had to guard Matthews, and OJ is a bigger body.

Well, that makes sense. But for some push back, I don't care for those kinds of moves if they can be avoided. C.J. is proven in pressure situations and this was our biggest five minutes of the year. OJ was clearly rattled out there.

I would prefer we put in C.J. and see how it goes. If Matthews immediately burns him, then, yes, put OJ in instead. But the guys with the game should at least be given a chance to perform.

.

.

.

.

"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

No kidding. If the NBA is more concerned with TV ratings, then they should go back to the early 60's where there were just 8 teams, then they can put the Knicks and whomever else they want on TV 50 times a season. We have Stern out and about bringing in franchises that can't support themselves, and move cities within a decade, but let's not worry about making the league stronger as a whole, let's just focus on TV ratings. Good idea.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

I guess it goes back to the question who do you blame? The viewing public or the NBA/TV partners who don't put on the lesser known teams. (I don't think market size matters very much. If Lebron played in Muncie Indiana the Muncie Widcats would be on the maximum number of times)

No the league doesn't reward team quality they reward TV ratings. Certain teams get better ratings than others even if they are comparably good. And yes I know Bills argument that if the pacers are never on TV then they wil never be known and will not get good ratings and therefore won't be on TV. I get that. But look at the Thunder. Very small market team (that right now is one of the best rating draws in the NBA) How did they become a top TV draw? Very slowly. Become good is the first step, get or build recognizable star players and slowly build.

The veiwing public has to take some blame also. The average casual NBA viewer would rather watch the Clippers style of ball than the Pacers, Grizzlies, Spurs style. A lot of fans don't want to see David West or Duncan's fundamental style and would rather watch the Clippers' Griffin flying around dunking the ball.

Pacers popularity is building with their great start and the buzz that is creating along with Paul George. But it takes time to build that and once built we'll be complaining about too many national TV games involving the Pacers. Pacers are a likeable team that will become a pretty good ratings draw, but it takes time.

And no the NBA is not the NFL. Cannot compare the two. The NBA is more like MLB, but even that is hard to compare.

How do we know that fans across the country wouldn't be interested in watching the Pacers? Have the Pacers been given the chance to prove themselves in front of an ABC audience like the Knicks get every season? No, they haven't. The Pacers are still a relatively new team and last year's playoffs was their true coming out party. 2011-12 was big, but the 2013 postseason saw us beat a hyped 54 win Knick team in front of a huge audience and then take the champion Heat to 7 games in the ECF's. We did this with a young budding star and had plenty of people talking. So how do we know that people wouldn't have been interested in watching Pacer games on ABC this season? There is no way that you can definitely make that statement when there is no quantitative evidence. The Pacers aren't even getting the chance to prove themselves one way or the other. You're saying that the league does what it does because it works, but the problem with your argument is that it never even tries alternatives. There's simply no way that you can definitively say that people wouldn't be interested in watching a couple of Pacer games on ABC.

I'm not denying that franchises/markets like Chicago and New York are important to the league. My problem is that the ratios shouldn't be so laughably biased towards them. When the ABC games basically revolve around 5 franchises (a couple of whom aren't even very good teams), it's a problem.

The NBA is not the NFL and will never have its popularity, but you can still make basic comparisons. They are both professional sports leagues at the top of the pyramid in their respective sports. The NFL does a good job of successfully marketing a wide variety of teams to the entire country. Why can that not be brought into the argument? While the NBA won't ever be the NFL, why can't one say that maybe there is a thing or two that the NBA could learn from the NFL to better its product?

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Look at the first round playoff ratings. Take away the NBATV games. Compare TNT, ESPN and ABC ratings. The Hawks vs Pacers ratings were awful, horrible. if i was an NBA or TV executive I would not have the pacers as a marque team after seeing the ratings. The firsr round of the playoffs is always a very good indicator of what teams draw ratings. There isn't time to advertise, there are a ton of games, all equally important

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Look at the first round playoff ratings. Take away the NBATV games. Compare TNT, ESPN and ABC ratings. The Hawks vs Pacers ratings were awful, horrible. if i was an NBA or TV executive I would not have the pacers as a marque team after seeing the ratings. The firsr round of the playoffs is always a very good indicator of what teams draw ratings. There isn't time to advertise, there are a ton of games, all equally important

You mean the ratings where the Heat/Pacers pulled more people than Heat/Bulls? Which is why Chicago got 5 ESPN/ABC games to the Pacers zero.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Look at the first round playoff ratings. Take away the NBATV games. Compare TNT, ESPN and ABC ratings. The Hawks vs Pacers ratings were awful, horrible. if i was an NBA or TV executive I would not have the pacers as a marque team after seeing the ratings. The firsr round of the playoffs is always a very good indicator of what teams draw ratings. There isn't time to advertise, there are a ton of games, all equally important

Which was before the Pacers beat a 54 win hyped Knicks team in front of a national audience and then took Miami to Game 7 of the ECF's. Why shouldn't the Pacers have been given the opportunity to capitalize on that in at least one or two ABC games this year against a team like Miami or New York who you know would help bring in the ratings? I'm not saying they deserved five ABC games, but what is wrong with given them at least one?

I'm not saying that they should schedule Pacers-Bucks on ABC, but what is wrong with putting a Pacers-Heat game on ABC? You don't think that will get ratings? My problem is that most of the ABC games are basically some combination of the same 5 teams (LAL, NY, Chi, OKC, Mia).

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

With those ratings, I'll point out that the highest rated Bulls/Heat game was viewed by 6.6M people. The lowest Pacers/Heat game? 7M.

Not to mention that SAS isn't getting any national TV love, and they just happened to be the Heat's opponent for near record setting ratings. And this issue can be solved, without taking the Heat off of national TV. How about televising a Heat/Pacers game? Nah, we know the Pacers don't pull good ratings, regardless of who they play.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Which was before the Pacers beat a 54 win hyped Knicks team in front of a national audience and then took Miami to Game 7 of the ECF's. Why shouldn't the Pacers have been given the opportunity to capitalize on that in at least one or two ABC games this year against a team like Miami or New York who you know would help bring in the ratings? I'm not saying they deserved five ABC games, but what is wrong with given them at least one?

I'm not saying that they should schedule Pacers-Bucks on ABC, but what is wrong with putting a Pacers-Heat game on ABC? You don't think that will get ratings? My problem is that most of the ABC games are basically some combination of the same 5 teams (LAL, NY, Chi, OKC, Mia).

Nothing wrong with it, but if you look at it just on the numbers I can understand why we are not on ABC. Sure I would guess we were borderline, and I would be surprised if we don't have a game or two added later.

Pacers are on TNT a couple of times and that is also a showcase for the league on Thursday nights.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

Oh, so ratings go up with the quality of basketball, not who's playing? Interesting.

No, they primarily go up when the games are more important. Each round is more important, that is why there is more interest. Since you are trying to look at it in a vacuum, you know you cannot do that. There are probably a dozen different factors that go into why TV ratings are what they are.

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

No, they primarily go up when the games are more important. Each round is more important, that is why there is more interest. Since you are trying to look at it in a vacuum, you know you cannot do that. There are probably a dozen different factors that go into why TV ratings are what they are.

You can use the word "important" while I stick with the word "quality."

And really? What other factors do the Knicks/Nets best the Pacers in, besides TV market size?

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

And really? What other factors do the Knicks/Nets best the Pacers in, besides TV market size?

remember the games were picked back in late July when the Nets and Knicks looked like they would be pretty good teams. Factors that go into TV ratings. In no order at all. Stars on the team. Quality of team. market size. Which round of playoffs. What game within the playoff series. (games 7's shoot up in ratings) Timeslot. Rivalry? Injuries. How close the actual game is. Recent controversy involving team or players - have they been in the news lately.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:

Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

We wonder why the NBA has had two lockouts in about a decade, because their smaller market teams can't stay financially stable, and we're arguing whether or not the NBA's marketing strategy is the best choice. If you go off of results, it's pretty hard to argue that this is the best the league can do. If it is, then the league needs to start cutting the dead weight.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?